QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan There is one way you can get away with scraping Amtrak; out-source the job to VIA. I don't imagine we will allow indemnification though.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon congrats on the star ..you booger eatin, green swamp ogre[;)]
Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 2:45 PM Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 6:05 PM Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:00 PM There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. My father grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to serve family farmers coming to town by horse. My mother grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to maintain a few miles of the Katy RR and provide water and coal for steam locomotives. Before the Interstate highway system the old US highways went through the center of small towns along the way. Travelers from the city and small town shopkeepers depended on one another and knew each other. Now family farmers are disappearing, railroads need fewer people and city dwellers can bypass small town on the Interstate, in the air, and over the Internet. As a child I felt at home in small towns and on farms and my parents talked the same way in the city or the country. Now I look at the Red counties on the map and realize I never go there except occasionally speeding through on the Interstate. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. Bush has created an image of someone who doesn’t need the global economy but the jobs and stores and family farms will continue to disappear from Bush country. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Here, Here. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. The maps which show the breakdown by county have very little Blue. California for instance 2/3 red. Many of the Red areas are not as backward as the elitists in the blue areas would like to believe. Many of the Blue areas are rotting at their core with a growing underclass kept down by the by the ill concieved policys and programs the elitists pu***o "help" them. There is a major disagreement on how to slove the problems. I am a "Red" voter. I am for freedom. I am for education. I am for helping people escape poverty. The policies pushed by the "blue" politicitions have not worked. Lyndon Johnson started a "war on poverty". Poverty is winning. Its time to change our tactics. I look at our schools. I see a few top students doing thing far beyond the level of the best students in my day, but I see far more who can not even read or do basic arithmatic at the level required for graduation 40 years ago. If it were not for an influx of well educated forigners, many business would have great trouble operating, the hospitials in my area would be gravely understaffed, especially with doctors. Many of the engineers I deal with are foreign born (although they usually received part of their education here) . Actually the split in the country by area is not as great as it looks. The State maps and statistics on the CNN site give a better picture http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ While their are exceptions both on the Red side and the Blue side, most of the country is fairly evenly split and as voting on other offices and issues show a vote for president is not necessairly a blanket endorcement of their perceived agenda. As far as Amtrak and other passenger rail services go, the people will express there will through their elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Who is President does not really make a difference. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:27 PM ...If we could see a map of colors depicting exactly how we all voted we'd see generous amounts of both red and blue....The center of our country would not be all red but would have a portion of blue mixed with all the red....Same with both coasts and upper Great Lakes area..... As for expressing our will re: Amtrak through our representives...Sure that is the system, but the President can work his will somewhat on the system long before we have a chance to change anything through changes in our representives. Most people will agree in todays world the "programs" of the blue area are not a cure all but back in the 30's we may have dropped a bit lower if we wouldn't have had some of them to soften the blows all around us. Quentin Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:32 PM Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? 100, 2 per state Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:50 PM junctionfan, the united states senate has two senators representing each of our fifty states, ie, one hundred senators in all. may i ask why you would have made such an offensive comment about the american political scene if you have not at least a basic understanding of the subject. "Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........" why is it always the job of americans to make the effort to understand and respect the needs and cultures of other nations? does it ever run both ways? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:50 PM I don't like how politics in general work in Canada and the U.S. Politicians in general do a lousy job in office, don't keep their promises and never give straight answers. What kind of baffles me is that the U.S only votes for Democrats or Republican. They don't really give other parties a chance. In Canada, we have 5 groups in parliment. Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Independant. Soon we will likely see the Green Party gain some seats too. It just seems to me if you are not happy about either party (Republican or Democratic), maybe the American people should choose a different party. Me personally, I don't like the Liberals because they work themselves into political wedgees from sitting on the fence about almost every issue; the Conservatives are just a bunch of sherrifs of Nottingham stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I voted N.D.P. Of course the party didn't get in but the number of votes and seats in the house is growing. Andrew Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:56 PM Junctionfan....Interesting comments. "Never give straight answers"....Wonder if that will ever change...I doubt it as long as they're politicians. Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM i' m sorry you're unhappy with canada. i have visited your country and fine it a fine place with many decent people trying to do the best that they can.... a lot like the united states. Reply Edit jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM Amtrak will finally be "contracted out" and the Bush fallacy will be proven false! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:53 PM Canada and United States are fine countries to live in. The problem is that the government isn't doing their jobs. It bugs me to no end to see great potential sullied by a bunch of insignificant do nothings who are suppose to represent the people's needs; not just themselves. They are suppose to do the job of care-taker/janitor of the country. All they do is play political games for political points and at the end of the term, try to get back in again, raise their salaries while the working class don't get anything and sit on their butts, ranting and raving like a bunch of foney bleeding heart liberals, pretending they actually give a damn. That is not the way I run my house so what makes thease "experts" think that they can run a country like that? Thease repugnent jerks are ruining our countries with their political games and their procastinating. I have little faith in the political system because they keep doing the same stupid things over and over again. I think thease universities and other ivy-league schools must preach and teach the traditions of ineffective governing so they do a "good job" once they get into office. After they smear each other in their campaigns, if there is a change, is it really? Don't you find that the platforms may be different and the candidates might be different but the actions and results are the same? I know democracy isn't perfect but come on; it's suppose to work a little bit better than what it is right now isn't it? Sorry folks for the ranting but I just can't stand our politicians. They don't really have any vision other than the one they are told to have either from the brain-washing from their universities, their party heads or their spin-doctor/ political advisors. I don't see much advancement as a society or any sign of advanced thinking in the government and I don't think we will until maybe a couple of hundred years from now when the rest of the world is far a head of us. Look at the ancient civilizations and the rate of advancements then and compare it to now; we should be far more advanced technologically speaking and socially as well. We have fallen behind thanks to politics either in a government or politics from religion (Vatican in the "Dark Ages") The middle east is a prime example of this. Look at the mighty Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians and now look at them.... What the heck is going on here? Why have we allowed this to happen? Andrew Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:01 PM Junctionfan In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. The founding fathers (pardon the politically incorrect phrase, but that is what they were) did not intend for their to be political parties and professional politicians. The intended that the people choose people the knew and trusted to meet and make the decisions for them. A knowlegeable friend pointed out to me the other day that the US is a "representative republic" (a term I had somehow not heard before). The US is not a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy" as it is often called. The political parties came about as a means for like minded persons to come together to promote their beliefs and policies and to choose and promote the election of canidates with whom they agreed. There is nothing sacred about the "two party" system. It just happens to be what evolved. Very Simplified History: Origionally there was only one party, the Federalist (Wig) Party. The Democratic Republican Party arose to chalenge the Wigs and eventually replaced them. We had a one party system for awhile, then the Republican Party formed to chalenge the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans became the Democratic Party and the two party system we have today was born. There have been and are other parties in the US, but although some came close, none of them have so far gained broad enough support to become major players. If an agenda of a "third party" is gains broad support, one or both of the major parties adopt it, and the "third party" will whither away. For many years both major parties were actually fairly close their stands on most issues. Most of their differences were in detail and large numbers of people could feel comfortable in either party. The is no longer true. The Democrats claim that the Republicans have become too "right wing". I disagree. The Republicans are still a broadly based party. The Democrats are now largley dominited by the "radical left" and a coaliation pressure groups with different agendas that do not really reflect the beliefs of the majority of its registered membership. This is shown by the fact that "special agenda" proposals supported by the Democratic Party are not approved by the voters even in the States they "control". Ronald Reagan, when asked why he changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican said "I didn't leave the party, it left me" Retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller recenently expressed the same sentiments. The recent Democratic candidate for president tried to hide his real beliefs and in fact in his speeches was inconsistent because he tailored his statements to fit the audiance. There are several other Democrats who would have been a much better choice for the party and would have given the voters a clear choice at the poles. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:32 PM Junctionfan, This continues as off-topic, but maybe it can shed some light. (Colorado defeated the change). Colorado's Crucial Vote America's federal system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities suited to this heterogeneous nation By George F. Will Newsweek Aug. 30 issue - November's most portentous vote is not for president. It is Colorado's vote on abandoning, beginning this year, the winner-take-all allocation of the state's electoral votes. Instead, they would be divided according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote. This is a pernicious proposal, and not merely because one of its aims is partisan: if Colorado had had this system in 2000, its eight (now nine) electoral votes would have gone to Bush 5-3 instead of 8-0 and the six-vote swing would have elected Gore. The Colorado proposal, which may be a precursor of a nationwide drive to scrap the electoral-vote system, ignores how that system nurtures crucial political virtues. Winner-take-all allocation is a state choice, not a constitutional mandate, but 48 states have made it. Maine and Nebraska allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and award the two votes for the state's senators to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. America's constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national offices—the president, vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives—are chosen by majorities that reflect the nation's federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states' congressional districts. American majorities are not spontaneous; they are built. A two-party system builds moderate majorities by assembling them from coalitions of minorities. In multiparty systems, parties proliferate, each representing intense minorities. Then a group of parties strives to govern through (often unstable) coalitions improvised after the election. A two-party system is buttressed by an electoral system that handicaps minor parties by electing a single person from each jurisdiction, chosen by majority or plurality. In presidential elections, states are the jurisdictions. So in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote but carried no state and won no electoral votes. Bill Clinton's 43 percent of the popular vote won him 68.8 percent of the electoral votes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson's 41.8 percent of the popular vote produced a strong presidency based on 81.9 percent of the electoral votes. If the proposed Colorado system had been used everywhere in 1992, Clinton would have led with just 236 electoral votes and the House would have selected the president. The House also would have selected in 1948 and 1968. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the electoral-vote system, combined with winner-take-all allocation, creates a "distribution condition." Candidates cannot just pile up popular votes in the most populous states. They must win many states, because legitimacy, and the capacity to govern this extensive republic, involves more than crude arithmetic. The federal principle, Best argues, prevents the most dangerous kinds of factions—racial, religious, economic—"from uniting their votes across state lines. It confines them within little republics and forces them to compromise early and often with their fellow state citizens." The 2000 election, the sixth in which the popular-vote margin between the winner and runner-up was less than 1 percent, was a reminder that the electoral-vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine a close election—2000, or the 1960 election, in which Kennedy's margin over Nixon was just 118,574—under direct popular election. With all votes poured into a single national bucket, there would be powerful incentives to challenge the results in many thousands of the nation's 170,000 precincts. The outcome could remain murky for months, leaving whoever wins crippled by attenuated legitimacy. America has direct popular election of presidents, but has it within the states. As Best says, the states are not mere administrative agencies for a unitary government; they are components of a compound—a federal—republic. And today's electoral-vote system is not an 18th-century anachronism. It has evolved, shaping and being shaped by a large development the Constitution's Framers did not foresee—the two-party system. Under the Colorado proposal, almost all of that state's elections would result in 5-4 splits of its electoral votes. The one-vote prize would hardly be worth a Colorado stop by any candidate. Still, the proposal appeals to single-minded—hence simple-minded—majoritarians. And to some Kerry partisans who should be careful what they wish for. Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:29 PM I just get tired of the bull that is associated with politics in general. Would it be nice if who ever gets in power, they actually drop the partisan crap and get to work? In the process, wouldn't it be great if the politicians would do what they say they doing? Are you really satisfied with the politicans? I know I sound like a synic but why shouldn't I be? I can't think of to many instances where I would have said to myself "Now that's a good thing he or she did". I have heard the stories of how Congress intentionally set up Amtrak to fail; this is exceptable why? What kind of message does this send to future generations; that it's O.k to design a system that employs thousands of people and uses up billions of your tax money but don't worry because I will design it in such a way that the great investment of your money will mean nothing and now I can get rid of those thousands of workers and put them on welfare or unemployement using up even more of your money? Then they would profess that Amtrak fall is for the best of the country. No......it's the best for the railroads (ie) campaign contributors. How can people except a blatent misuse of money like that not to mention, you are going to cause unemployement and increase gridlock on the roads. I don't think people have really thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. It is like the myth that the Kyoto protocol in principal is a stupid idea. Who told you this, the oil companies, coal powered generating companies? What is the real motivation behind their so called good advice and concerns? What is the point of trying to stop global warming?-watch the movie Day after Tomarrow-that is the answer; saving our civilzation isn't less important than making just a bit more money I would hope. The point is, politicians are not doing their job whatever form of "democracy / republic" the government is doing because they are not doing it to better the people. Do you the people want your money to fail (Amtrak). If you were shareholders in some company, would you want the business to fail? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:49 PM Here's a few thoughts: 1. Unions. Republicans will continue to take action to erode the power of organized labor. Look for additional appointments to NMB and various other Federal Agencies including FRA, RRB and STB to be generally conservative. Also, look for major changes on the SUpreme Court and the balance of the Federal Bench to affect labor. 2. Amtrak. Although there are people including the administration that would like to terminate Amtrak, don't look at much of the Gil Carmichael Amtrak Board's recommendations to be implemented anytime soon. Plenty of strong Republican Senators and Congressmen value their Amtrak service, especially in the South. 3. Class 1s. Larger railroads will benefit from tighter Republican control of Presidency, House and Senate. 4. Short Lines. Having been noticed and contributed to Republican causes, short lines can be expected to continue pushing to advance their agenda through the ASLRRA and independently particularly efforts to overcome the 286,000 lbs challenge of infrastructure upgrade funding. LC Reply Edit joesap1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Tulsa, OK 140 posts Posted by joesap1 on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:13 PM I hope this doesn't degenerate into President bashing...I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on the raidio tonight and ole whatshisface said, " Out of the election came some pretty good jokes." Then, there were a long series of jokes told, all anti-Bush. Such as, " What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq? George Bush had a way out of the war in Viet Nam." Ha! Ha! Anyway, despite the Democrats acting like they love the poor, the minority's, and the unions, the fact is that they are like all politicians in that they use what they can to get elected. Therefore, it is only those who paid them big bucks that will get legislation that is slanted their way. So, as has been written previously- just more of the same. Some joksters will favor the railroad, so will not. To quote Will Rogers again: "When I make a joke it does hurt nobody, when congress makes a joke, it's a law." Joe Sapwater Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Sunday, November 7, 2004 1:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Our men and women in uniform not only need more than they get, they deserve more. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,029 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:22 AM Begin the terrorist to Begin the Statesman: Please know for certain that at the time of the Begin authorized bombing, (1) The Hotel was British Military Hq for Jerusalem and the only civilians present, including some Jews, were working for the British Military. (2) None of the terrorist groups active in Israel's War of Independence targeted any civiliians, only military targets, just as George Washington did. (3) The commander got a call from the Israeli underground advising him to evacuate the Hotel. His reply was "I don't take orders from Jews." That is why there were casualties. But I agree about Arabs in general, and I have some "Palestinian" friends. The conflict is really very artificial and British occupations, colonialism, have a great history of doing the opposite of making peace between the people they are ruling. Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakestan are a another example. Whabee Islam was something new, a desert tribe of maurauders have distorted what was a very tolerant religion. While the "moderates" are concerned about the terror that their educational system created and is now against their use of foreign experts and relations with the USA, some have continued to fund extremist schools and mosques in the USA itself. But there are some very fine Saudis, and hopefully their views will come to the fore shortly. But meanwhile, is a USA National Transportation Defense Bill necessary? Investigating how can the USA function if overseas oil supplies are cut off for any reason? Should the extra rail equipment and buses (hopfully hybrid) be stockpiled for such an emergency? How about a fleet of troop sleepers built to the outline of the new LIRR double deckers that DO fit through the Penn Sta. Tunnels and I would guess the Baltimore tunnels also, that can serve troops in time of emergency but also have curtians and removable panels to serve as "Sleepercoach II" for Amtrak? Economy sleepers have a long USA history and fit a market that is not addressed by Amtrak's current equipment. Should the slockpiled freight equipment be Roadrailers? What about containers that can be used not only on the highway and on rail but also in cargo planes? How much of the funding should come from the general revenue, from the Defense Budget, and from the Highway Trust Fund? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 8, 2004 1:39 PM [#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic]MR OR MS. MODERATOR: May it please the forum, I believe that this subject is about[xx(] (dead). May we plese move on, As an asside many of these topics would be good ones in their own right and would do well in individual threads. [tup] Reply Edit « First«-10123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill Crystal-ball gazing time? What's different? Only more of the same. The Senate has always been the conservative body, Where have the fiscal conservatives gone? Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 6:05 PM Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:00 PM There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. My father grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to serve family farmers coming to town by horse. My mother grew up in a small town that has no reason to exist today, it was founded to maintain a few miles of the Katy RR and provide water and coal for steam locomotives. Before the Interstate highway system the old US highways went through the center of small towns along the way. Travelers from the city and small town shopkeepers depended on one another and knew each other. Now family farmers are disappearing, railroads need fewer people and city dwellers can bypass small town on the Interstate, in the air, and over the Internet. As a child I felt at home in small towns and on farms and my parents talked the same way in the city or the country. Now I look at the Red counties on the map and realize I never go there except occasionally speeding through on the Interstate. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. Bush has created an image of someone who doesn’t need the global economy but the jobs and stores and family farms will continue to disappear from Bush country. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 5, 2004 7:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg] Here, Here. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it. The maps which show the breakdown by county have very little Blue. California for instance 2/3 red. Many of the Red areas are not as backward as the elitists in the blue areas would like to believe. Many of the Blue areas are rotting at their core with a growing underclass kept down by the by the ill concieved policys and programs the elitists pu***o "help" them. There is a major disagreement on how to slove the problems. I am a "Red" voter. I am for freedom. I am for education. I am for helping people escape poverty. The policies pushed by the "blue" politicitions have not worked. Lyndon Johnson started a "war on poverty". Poverty is winning. Its time to change our tactics. I look at our schools. I see a few top students doing thing far beyond the level of the best students in my day, but I see far more who can not even read or do basic arithmatic at the level required for graduation 40 years ago. If it were not for an influx of well educated forigners, many business would have great trouble operating, the hospitials in my area would be gravely understaffed, especially with doctors. Many of the engineers I deal with are foreign born (although they usually received part of their education here) . Actually the split in the country by area is not as great as it looks. The State maps and statistics on the CNN site give a better picture http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/ While their are exceptions both on the Red side and the Blue side, most of the country is fairly evenly split and as voting on other offices and issues show a vote for president is not necessairly a blanket endorcement of their perceived agenda. As far as Amtrak and other passenger rail services go, the people will express there will through their elected representatives at the local, state and federal level. Who is President does not really make a difference. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:27 PM ...If we could see a map of colors depicting exactly how we all voted we'd see generous amounts of both red and blue....The center of our country would not be all red but would have a portion of blue mixed with all the red....Same with both coasts and upper Great Lakes area..... As for expressing our will re: Amtrak through our representives...Sure that is the system, but the President can work his will somewhat on the system long before we have a chance to change anything through changes in our representives. Most people will agree in todays world the "programs" of the blue area are not a cure all but back in the 30's we may have dropped a bit lower if we wouldn't have had some of them to soften the blows all around us. Quentin Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 4:32 PM Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:45 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there? 100, 2 per state Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 5:50 PM junctionfan, the united states senate has two senators representing each of our fifty states, ie, one hundred senators in all. may i ask why you would have made such an offensive comment about the american political scene if you have not at least a basic understanding of the subject. "Same cow patties, same pile. I just hope that the American majority know what they are doing. I hope they are careful and don't drown in the mounting pile of cow patties........" why is it always the job of americans to make the effort to understand and respect the needs and cultures of other nations? does it ever run both ways? Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:50 PM I don't like how politics in general work in Canada and the U.S. Politicians in general do a lousy job in office, don't keep their promises and never give straight answers. What kind of baffles me is that the U.S only votes for Democrats or Republican. They don't really give other parties a chance. In Canada, we have 5 groups in parliment. Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Independant. Soon we will likely see the Green Party gain some seats too. It just seems to me if you are not happy about either party (Republican or Democratic), maybe the American people should choose a different party. Me personally, I don't like the Liberals because they work themselves into political wedgees from sitting on the fence about almost every issue; the Conservatives are just a bunch of sherrifs of Nottingham stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I voted N.D.P. Of course the party didn't get in but the number of votes and seats in the house is growing. Andrew Reply Modelcar Member sinceFebruary 2002 From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania 13,456 posts Posted by Modelcar on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:56 PM Junctionfan....Interesting comments. "Never give straight answers"....Wonder if that will ever change...I doubt it as long as they're politicians. Quentin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM i' m sorry you're unhappy with canada. i have visited your country and fine it a fine place with many decent people trying to do the best that they can.... a lot like the united states. Reply Edit jimitimi Member sinceApril 2003 From: Andover, MN 33 posts Posted by jimitimi on Saturday, November 6, 2004 6:58 PM Amtrak will finally be "contracted out" and the Bush fallacy will be proven false! Reply Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 8:53 PM Canada and United States are fine countries to live in. The problem is that the government isn't doing their jobs. It bugs me to no end to see great potential sullied by a bunch of insignificant do nothings who are suppose to represent the people's needs; not just themselves. They are suppose to do the job of care-taker/janitor of the country. All they do is play political games for political points and at the end of the term, try to get back in again, raise their salaries while the working class don't get anything and sit on their butts, ranting and raving like a bunch of foney bleeding heart liberals, pretending they actually give a damn. That is not the way I run my house so what makes thease "experts" think that they can run a country like that? Thease repugnent jerks are ruining our countries with their political games and their procastinating. I have little faith in the political system because they keep doing the same stupid things over and over again. I think thease universities and other ivy-league schools must preach and teach the traditions of ineffective governing so they do a "good job" once they get into office. After they smear each other in their campaigns, if there is a change, is it really? Don't you find that the platforms may be different and the candidates might be different but the actions and results are the same? I know democracy isn't perfect but come on; it's suppose to work a little bit better than what it is right now isn't it? Sorry folks for the ranting but I just can't stand our politicians. They don't really have any vision other than the one they are told to have either from the brain-washing from their universities, their party heads or their spin-doctor/ political advisors. I don't see much advancement as a society or any sign of advanced thinking in the government and I don't think we will until maybe a couple of hundred years from now when the rest of the world is far a head of us. Look at the ancient civilizations and the rate of advancements then and compare it to now; we should be far more advanced technologically speaking and socially as well. We have fallen behind thanks to politics either in a government or politics from religion (Vatican in the "Dark Ages") The middle east is a prime example of this. Look at the mighty Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians and now look at them.... What the heck is going on here? Why have we allowed this to happen? Andrew Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:01 PM Junctionfan In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. The founding fathers (pardon the politically incorrect phrase, but that is what they were) did not intend for their to be political parties and professional politicians. The intended that the people choose people the knew and trusted to meet and make the decisions for them. A knowlegeable friend pointed out to me the other day that the US is a "representative republic" (a term I had somehow not heard before). The US is not a "democracy" or even a "representative democracy" as it is often called. The political parties came about as a means for like minded persons to come together to promote their beliefs and policies and to choose and promote the election of canidates with whom they agreed. There is nothing sacred about the "two party" system. It just happens to be what evolved. Very Simplified History: Origionally there was only one party, the Federalist (Wig) Party. The Democratic Republican Party arose to chalenge the Wigs and eventually replaced them. We had a one party system for awhile, then the Republican Party formed to chalenge the Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republicans became the Democratic Party and the two party system we have today was born. There have been and are other parties in the US, but although some came close, none of them have so far gained broad enough support to become major players. If an agenda of a "third party" is gains broad support, one or both of the major parties adopt it, and the "third party" will whither away. For many years both major parties were actually fairly close their stands on most issues. Most of their differences were in detail and large numbers of people could feel comfortable in either party. The is no longer true. The Democrats claim that the Republicans have become too "right wing". I disagree. The Republicans are still a broadly based party. The Democrats are now largley dominited by the "radical left" and a coaliation pressure groups with different agendas that do not really reflect the beliefs of the majority of its registered membership. This is shown by the fact that "special agenda" proposals supported by the Democratic Party are not approved by the voters even in the States they "control". Ronald Reagan, when asked why he changed his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican said "I didn't leave the party, it left me" Retiring Democratic Senator Zell Miller recenently expressed the same sentiments. The recent Democratic candidate for president tried to hide his real beliefs and in fact in his speeches was inconsistent because he tailored his statements to fit the audiance. There are several other Democrats who would have been a much better choice for the party and would have given the voters a clear choice at the poles. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 9:32 PM Junctionfan, This continues as off-topic, but maybe it can shed some light. (Colorado defeated the change). Colorado's Crucial Vote America's federal system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities suited to this heterogeneous nation By George F. Will Newsweek Aug. 30 issue - November's most portentous vote is not for president. It is Colorado's vote on abandoning, beginning this year, the winner-take-all allocation of the state's electoral votes. Instead, they would be divided according to each candidate's percentage of the popular vote. This is a pernicious proposal, and not merely because one of its aims is partisan: if Colorado had had this system in 2000, its eight (now nine) electoral votes would have gone to Bush 5-3 instead of 8-0 and the six-vote swing would have elected Gore. The Colorado proposal, which may be a precursor of a nationwide drive to scrap the electoral-vote system, ignores how that system nurtures crucial political virtues. Winner-take-all allocation is a state choice, not a constitutional mandate, but 48 states have made it. Maine and Nebraska allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and award the two votes for the state's senators to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. America's constitutional system aims not merely for majority rule but for rule by certain kinds of majorities. It aims for majorities suited to moderate, consensual governance of a heterogeneous, continental nation with myriad regional and other diversities. All 537 persons elected to national offices—the president, vice president, 100 senators and 435 representatives—are chosen by majorities that reflect the nation's federal nature. They are elected by majorities within states or within states' congressional districts. American majorities are not spontaneous; they are built. A two-party system builds moderate majorities by assembling them from coalitions of minorities. In multiparty systems, parties proliferate, each representing intense minorities. Then a group of parties strives to govern through (often unstable) coalitions improvised after the election. A two-party system is buttressed by an electoral system that handicaps minor parties by electing a single person from each jurisdiction, chosen by majority or plurality. In presidential elections, states are the jurisdictions. So in 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote but carried no state and won no electoral votes. Bill Clinton's 43 percent of the popular vote won him 68.8 percent of the electoral votes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson's 41.8 percent of the popular vote produced a strong presidency based on 81.9 percent of the electoral votes. If the proposed Colorado system had been used everywhere in 1992, Clinton would have led with just 236 electoral votes and the House would have selected the president. The House also would have selected in 1948 and 1968. Political scientist Judith Best notes that the electoral-vote system, combined with winner-take-all allocation, creates a "distribution condition." Candidates cannot just pile up popular votes in the most populous states. They must win many states, because legitimacy, and the capacity to govern this extensive republic, involves more than crude arithmetic. The federal principle, Best argues, prevents the most dangerous kinds of factions—racial, religious, economic—"from uniting their votes across state lines. It confines them within little republics and forces them to compromise early and often with their fellow state citizens." The 2000 election, the sixth in which the popular-vote margin between the winner and runner-up was less than 1 percent, was a reminder that the electoral-vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine a close election—2000, or the 1960 election, in which Kennedy's margin over Nixon was just 118,574—under direct popular election. With all votes poured into a single national bucket, there would be powerful incentives to challenge the results in many thousands of the nation's 170,000 precincts. The outcome could remain murky for months, leaving whoever wins crippled by attenuated legitimacy. America has direct popular election of presidents, but has it within the states. As Best says, the states are not mere administrative agencies for a unitary government; they are components of a compound—a federal—republic. And today's electoral-vote system is not an 18th-century anachronism. It has evolved, shaping and being shaped by a large development the Constitution's Framers did not foresee—the two-party system. Under the Colorado proposal, almost all of that state's elections would result in 5-4 splits of its electoral votes. The one-vote prize would hardly be worth a Colorado stop by any candidate. Still, the proposal appeals to single-minded—hence simple-minded—majoritarians. And to some Kerry partisans who should be careful what they wish for. Suppose Kerry wins Colorado (in 2000 Bush won with 50.8 percent; Kerry's campaign says their man is leading today). And suppose winner-take-all is ended. Kerry will harvest five instead of nine electoral votes. He could lose the presidency by seven electoral votes (Gore lost by five), less than the eight-vote swing that Colorado's new system would produce. That would be poetic justice, the best kind. © 2004 Newsweek, Inc. Reply Edit Junctionfan Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: St.Catharines, Ontario 3,770 posts Posted by Junctionfan on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:29 PM I just get tired of the bull that is associated with politics in general. Would it be nice if who ever gets in power, they actually drop the partisan crap and get to work? In the process, wouldn't it be great if the politicians would do what they say they doing? Are you really satisfied with the politicans? I know I sound like a synic but why shouldn't I be? I can't think of to many instances where I would have said to myself "Now that's a good thing he or she did". I have heard the stories of how Congress intentionally set up Amtrak to fail; this is exceptable why? What kind of message does this send to future generations; that it's O.k to design a system that employs thousands of people and uses up billions of your tax money but don't worry because I will design it in such a way that the great investment of your money will mean nothing and now I can get rid of those thousands of workers and put them on welfare or unemployement using up even more of your money? Then they would profess that Amtrak fall is for the best of the country. No......it's the best for the railroads (ie) campaign contributors. How can people except a blatent misuse of money like that not to mention, you are going to cause unemployement and increase gridlock on the roads. I don't think people have really thought about the long-term consequences of their actions. It is like the myth that the Kyoto protocol in principal is a stupid idea. Who told you this, the oil companies, coal powered generating companies? What is the real motivation behind their so called good advice and concerns? What is the point of trying to stop global warming?-watch the movie Day after Tomarrow-that is the answer; saving our civilzation isn't less important than making just a bit more money I would hope. The point is, politicians are not doing their job whatever form of "democracy / republic" the government is doing because they are not doing it to better the people. Do you the people want your money to fail (Amtrak). If you were shareholders in some company, would you want the business to fail? Andrew Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, November 6, 2004 10:49 PM Here's a few thoughts: 1. Unions. Republicans will continue to take action to erode the power of organized labor. Look for additional appointments to NMB and various other Federal Agencies including FRA, RRB and STB to be generally conservative. Also, look for major changes on the SUpreme Court and the balance of the Federal Bench to affect labor. 2. Amtrak. Although there are people including the administration that would like to terminate Amtrak, don't look at much of the Gil Carmichael Amtrak Board's recommendations to be implemented anytime soon. Plenty of strong Republican Senators and Congressmen value their Amtrak service, especially in the South. 3. Class 1s. Larger railroads will benefit from tighter Republican control of Presidency, House and Senate. 4. Short Lines. Having been noticed and contributed to Republican causes, short lines can be expected to continue pushing to advance their agenda through the ASLRRA and independently particularly efforts to overcome the 286,000 lbs challenge of infrastructure upgrade funding. LC Reply Edit joesap1 Member sinceNovember 2003 From: Tulsa, OK 140 posts Posted by joesap1 on Saturday, November 6, 2004 11:13 PM I hope this doesn't degenerate into President bashing...I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on the raidio tonight and ole whatshisface said, " Out of the election came some pretty good jokes." Then, there were a long series of jokes told, all anti-Bush. Such as, " What is the difference between the Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq? George Bush had a way out of the war in Viet Nam." Ha! Ha! Anyway, despite the Democrats acting like they love the poor, the minority's, and the unions, the fact is that they are like all politicians in that they use what they can to get elected. Therefore, it is only those who paid them big bucks that will get legislation that is slanted their way. So, as has been written previously- just more of the same. Some joksters will favor the railroad, so will not. To quote Will Rogers again: "When I make a joke it does hurt nobody, when congress makes a joke, it's a law." Joe Sapwater Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Sunday, November 7, 2004 1:45 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Sunday, November 7, 2004 2:16 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it! Our men and women in uniform not only need more than they get, they deserve more. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,029 posts Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, November 7, 2004 4:22 AM Begin the terrorist to Begin the Statesman: Please know for certain that at the time of the Begin authorized bombing, (1) The Hotel was British Military Hq for Jerusalem and the only civilians present, including some Jews, were working for the British Military. (2) None of the terrorist groups active in Israel's War of Independence targeted any civiliians, only military targets, just as George Washington did. (3) The commander got a call from the Israeli underground advising him to evacuate the Hotel. His reply was "I don't take orders from Jews." That is why there were casualties. But I agree about Arabs in general, and I have some "Palestinian" friends. The conflict is really very artificial and British occupations, colonialism, have a great history of doing the opposite of making peace between the people they are ruling. Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakestan are a another example. Whabee Islam was something new, a desert tribe of maurauders have distorted what was a very tolerant religion. While the "moderates" are concerned about the terror that their educational system created and is now against their use of foreign experts and relations with the USA, some have continued to fund extremist schools and mosques in the USA itself. But there are some very fine Saudis, and hopefully their views will come to the fore shortly. But meanwhile, is a USA National Transportation Defense Bill necessary? Investigating how can the USA function if overseas oil supplies are cut off for any reason? Should the extra rail equipment and buses (hopfully hybrid) be stockpiled for such an emergency? How about a fleet of troop sleepers built to the outline of the new LIRR double deckers that DO fit through the Penn Sta. Tunnels and I would guess the Baltimore tunnels also, that can serve troops in time of emergency but also have curtians and removable panels to serve as "Sleepercoach II" for Amtrak? Economy sleepers have a long USA history and fit a market that is not addressed by Amtrak's current equipment. Should the slockpiled freight equipment be Roadrailers? What about containers that can be used not only on the highway and on rail but also in cargo planes? How much of the funding should come from the general revenue, from the Defense Budget, and from the Highway Trust Fund? Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 8, 2004 1:39 PM [#offtopic][#offtopic][#offtopic]MR OR MS. MODERATOR: May it please the forum, I believe that this subject is about[xx(] (dead). May we plese move on, As an asside many of these topics would be good ones in their own right and would do well in individual threads. [tup] Reply Edit « First«-10123 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
QUOTE: Originally posted by piouslion Of all the forums, where an industry, hobby or avocation are talked about, spoken of, or considered the threads eventually will deal with social and political questions. The interesting thing about all of this is that it gives a real cross section of our community. From what I have seen in this thread, us railroaders, railfans, historians, geographers, engineering types, and a lots of intrested and intresting people have proven that we have a great deal in common with each other on what we feel is important and a few things that we do not have in common. But one thing I know is that after the thunder's finished and the hard opinion established we get back to being the members of one of the greatest forums on the internet. I just thought that needed to be said[2c][swg]
QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki There are US election maps showing which counties went for Kerry or Bush. They show nearly all cities for Kerry and everything between cities for Bush. Technology and politics have split the nation into urban and rural. I used to think what was unique about America was that it was a developed civilized country from coast to coast. This election makes me think the country is splitting into two economies and two cultures; city states in the global economy and the interior the global economy has passed by. This describes China, India, Brazil and many other countries like Russia with Moscow in the global economy and the rest of Russia out of it.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan Sorry for the off topic question but how many senators are there?
QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313 QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt In the US, the political "liberals" want to take other peoples money to give to people they consider inferior (incapable of providing for themselves). They are usually less generous with their own money. The "conservatives" want people to control their own money and use it to beneifit themselves and others as they choose. This pretty much captures the "financial" side of the parties as far as politicians go. But bear in mind there are significant exceptions in the 'real world': some lower-ranked active duty military personnel are paid so little that they qualify for so-called 'liberal handouts' such as food stamps. They may be loyal Republicans, but military pay + stipends only go so far. On the other side, most of the actors and movie business folks from "Hollywood" are very liberal. Yet the movie industry is primarily private-enterprise; it's dog-eat-dog competition at the box office. Studios in a slump do not get government bailouts. And Hollywood studios worry about profits too, hence the large number of movies that have been shot in Canada due to lower labor rates. The very-liberal Hollywood studios are behaving just like any large corporation...if you can save money by taking work out of the country...then do it!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.